America's House of Commons on the World Wide Web:
Unabashedly Pro-American, Pro-Christian, and Pro-Freedom!

Friday, March 9, 2018

The Porn-ification of Popular Media Culture

I've missed a lot of this. Apparently, being too cheap to pay for "premium" cable has been a blessing.

While I was visiting my family, I got some insight into this situation. My kids have been used to having HBO and all the other costly cable subscriptions. They have seen things I've not - such as the popular Game of Thrones.

In the first episode, I was introduced to the main characters - the Stark family (the head of that clan is the one that is often seen in memes screaming "Winter is Coming!"), the king and his family (one of them a dwarf), and the previous royal family, containing that extremely pale Daenerys, third from the right in the photo display.

In fact, the coloration of these various families is one of the ways to keep them straight - dark, blonde, almost albino white - it's a study in ethnic solidarity.

There are some worthwhile aspects of this show, and the books they are based on. The stories are complex, interweaving, and require the persons watching to follow subtle story threads. So, one point for NOT having a "from start to resolution in an hour" overly simple construction. Actually, now that I think about it, the structure is more like a soap opera - multiple interwoven plot lines, only moving slowly towards completion.

However, there is a major bar, for me, to judging this a good thing.

That's the excessive nudity. Virtually every woman who is between 18-30 spends an inordinate amount of time full-on naked. Oh, sure, the viewer and the producers can justify it by saying that women weren't highly valued in these times, except for their sexual and reproductive capability. But, that doesn't mean that it's a good thing that the only way for a woman to get, and stay, on this show is to agree to take her clothes off and be "handled" by another actor as directed.

And, the women are handled. Roughly, because of their position in the castle (hey, for a serving wench, it's all in the job description), incestuously, by relatives, maritally, by the person that was arranged for you as part of a power play.

It's not subtle. It's not suggested.

Full-on fondling. A little like 70's semi-porn.

It's unnecessary. It's exploitative. It's happening, right in the middle of the #MeToo movement. The lack of awareness of the media is unbelievable.

The finale for Season 8 reached 8.9 million viewers, who paid good money for it. Altogether, as many as 23 million viewers may have paid for a subscription to the show.

The sexual exploitation of the actresses (and a few actors) simply HAS to continue. Any future shows looking for the same success will have to include gratuitous sexually-charged scenes, if they hope to keep a jaded audience.

The waiver was blasted by the Screen Actors Guild, which said that it did not explain the rights that actors belonging to the union have during sexual scenes.

“It’s important that performers understand their rights,” SAG spokesman Pamela Greenwalt said. “Employers should not be requiring performers to sign consent forms that do not accurately describe their rights under the collective-bargaining agreement.”

Greenwalt said extras have the right to withdraw consent at any time, along with the right to have a closed set for nude scenes and a prohibition of still photography.

The waiver’s requirements are so far past what extras normally do, the creators of “Westworld” have jacked up the standard $157-a-day union pay rate to $600, the report said.

Years ago, I seem to remember the Screen Actors Guild fighting to keep actors/actresses from being forced to strip for a role. At that time, the head of SAG (what an unfortunate acronym!) was a woman - it might have been Kathy Nolan - who tried to hold back the trend. If anyone has more knowledge of that time, leave it in the comments.

I lived through a sanitized time, before cable sidestepped industry norms. It produced some good television, and some mediocre TV, as well. Just like today. The problem wasn't the limitations. It was the poor imagination of the producers.

How does erotica fit into this?

It doesn't. Traditionally, erotica was relatively private - books, magazines, art, photos/film. Those involved in its production and consumption were all engaged in an activity that they consented to.

The larger society didn't engage with it, or have it brought into their home. It was generally illegal to sell to children, or involve them in producing it.

Now, did that stop people from using unwilling women and children? No. Just as the fact that it was illegal doesn't stop murder or robbery. The unlawful nature of it kept it existing on the fringes. Whether that was a good thing, or bad, I leave to you.

As long as the use of erotica was discreet, people were generally left alone.

What did result from this exclusion of erotic displays in mainstream film was that actresses and actors were not forced to strip, fondle and be fondled, or otherwise engage in sexual actions as a part of their standard job. That some might have had to subject themselves to sexual imposition to GET the job hasn't changed. However, they weren't forced to put that imposition on permanent display for the public's titillation.

I have a hard time with this whole issue - it's colored by my sense of modesty in public. I might be a freak in private, but - in public, I keep my sex life to myself. And, frankly, I'd strongly prefer NOT to know about other's more kinky sides.

Indulging ones interest in the erotic side of life is, and should stay, a private matter. There is no need to leave one's curtains open when romping around the house, no need to comment on the multiple uses of produce while shopping in the supermarket, and no need to bring out the vacation pictures of your latest stay at the nude beach while at work.

There's a difference between shame, and discretion. Many legal adult activities are best left behind closed doors. My feelings and thoughts on this were probably shaped by my career as a teacher. You may not realize it, but in most districts, you can be fired for:

Publicly being impaired due to drugs or alcohol - even being seen with a glass of beer or wedding champagne in your hand in a Facebook picture has caused teachers to be fired - and not just in religiously-affiliated schools.

Living with a significant other without marriage.

Expressing an unpopular political opinion.

Taking a stand against a popular SJW cause - gay marriage, special programs for minorities, immigration.

I would recommend that you purchase HARD copies (and paperbacks) of the classic books on culture and politics. It's easier to hand someone a book than to try to persuade them to buy it. For that reason, I'd suggest buying (used) Whittaker Chambers' Witness, F A Hayek's books, and other foundation reading that away.

5 comments:

- Publicly being impaired due to drugs or alcohol - even being seen with a glass of beer or wedding champagne in your hand in a Facebook picture has caused teachers to be fired - and not just in religiously-affiliated schools.- Living with a significant other without marriage.- Expressing an unpopular political opinion.- Taking a stand against a popular SJW cause - gay marriage, special programs for minorities, immigration.

I can see the latter two getting teachers in trouble nowadays, but the first two? That seems unlikely in this day and age (alas). Certainly in post-secondary education those are grounds for termination.

While I was teaching in Charlotte, NC, in the public schools, a teacher WAS fired for posting a picture of herself drinking on Facebook.

Others have been kicked out of teacher's ed programs, been put on leave, reassigned, or terminated for similar "offenses". I've been following this for some time, and I'm still shocked at the things that can get a teacher fired.

@Linda: well color me surprised! I don't *disapprove* mind you. I think anyone in a position of authority over impressionable youth *should* be held to high moral standards. I'm just shocked when I hear that any actually *are*.

IF - and that's a BIG IF - the parents were stripped of their rights to parent their children on the same standards, MAYBE.

I'm not saying that those that influence our children shouldn't be of good moral character. BUT - they should not be held to a higher standard than those that have primary responsibility. Legal intoxicants, keep their job, unless it oozes into their performance, or is on school-sponsored trips.

Many of these rules were put in place at a time when MOST people were expected to follow them. Since parents today can:- live together without being married- indulge in legal - and illegal - substances without losing custody- curse, watch porn, have "interesting" sex lives, etc.

NONE of which will cost them their children. The distinction in the standard is NOT beneficial for the kids. If a teacher could lose their job for it, then it should also put a parent's custody of their children in jeopardy.

Of course, I'm in favor of a more reasonable standard for teachers, not taking the kids from parents for minor issues.